A side question

How did Integral Humanism come to be confined into just four pages, when the works of other philosophers seem to run into pages and pages, books and books? The answer surprisingly, yields unexpected answers.

Religious texts like the Vedas, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are the basis of the principles of Integral Humanism. Since, Upadhyaya refers us extensively to the Vedas and other sacred texts, one can only presume that his work is only a clarification of the major philosophical answers of Hinduism and not a philosophical text unto itself. That's why he doesn't write much. He suggests implicitly, that the rest can be gotten from referring to the sacred texts.

Thus Upadhyaya commits two blunders:

Am acceptance of the tenets and principles put forth in the religious texts without questioning them, in his capacity as a philosopher.

The failure of confronting and answering the questions of a philosophy.

The former is a direct consequence of the latter. Thus Upadhyaya, himself is left without answers for the most important questions, that a philosopher should answer...

the nature of the individual

the nature of society

a system of ethics

Thus we find him piecing together his answers for these crucial questions from disparate and unrelated sources. Under the heading of "The individual" we find him talking about Dharma, under the heading of "society" we find him using the concepts of McDougal (a Western scientist), under the heading of Economic theory we find him fighting the ideas of capitalism using the ideas of socialism and fighting socialism using principles of capitalism.

What is Upadhyaya then?

Upadhyaya is a traditionalist (see the meaning of traditionalism), in the classical sense of the word. He will not give up or redefine the concepts like Dharma, Chiti, Moksha and Artha. He will use them in the same sense in which he encounters them in religious texts. And Upadhyaya faces the problem which any traditionalist would face when he has to deal with problems like political theory. Unable to formulate any sound political policy from the 'fundamental principles' of his philosophy, we find him frantically fighting capitalism stating sleeping pills and potato peelers as 'dehumanizing' influences.

Finally...

I have restrained myself from passing judgement about the true nature of Integral Humanism till here, till the very end of this series, only to clarify the various issues raised inside Integral Humanism. But what is Integral Humanism?

Integral Humanism is just another altruist-collectivist philosophy. The condensate of the ideas presented in Integral Humanism would be:

Dharmaa guiding principle for ethics and morality.

Societya sovereign being, an entity with a life of its own.

A socio-economic theory which is opposed to capitalism, a system which identifies its moral base with socialism.

The useful conclusions that one can reach are: (a) The element to be clarified and redefined objectively, is the concept of Dharma. A definition of Dharma outside Integral Humanism, a redemption of Dharma is necessary.(b) The element to be opposed and fought with all strength is the altruist-collectivist ideology of Integral Humanism, for Integral Humanism is nothing but thinly veiled socialism.